Bath & Body Works/Animal Testing

What’s up with Bath & Body Works, anyway? A few years ago, their products stated in plain English (all caps, I might add) “NO ANIMAL TESTING.” But today, their packaging all says “This finished product not tested on animals.”

One would be led to believe, then, that they now at least utilize products that ARE tested on animals (even if not by their own R&D people) – but PETA has them listed as a company that does not utilize animal testing in the creation of their products. (not that I pay much attention to PETA, but jeez…you think they’d stay on top of these things!)

So…am I going to have to give up my Sun-Ripened Raspberries in order to protest their practices, or what??? (FYI: I couldn’t find any internet info on B&BW…no website, no info at all. I sent them a letter, but am waiting for a response.)

Does anyone know the reason for the verbage change?

I looked at The Body Shop website. Their statement on animal testing might be the answer for the word change.

So the finished product is not tested on animals although the individual ingredients may have, in the past, been tested on animals.

That’s my guess.

Back off, man. I’m a scientist.

There’s a big difference between “The Body Shop” and “The Bath and Body Works”.

For one thing The Bath and Body Works is owned by the Limited Corporation, which is known for its past (and maybe present) use of sweatshops, so I can only guess what their stance is on animal testing. Also, their products are typically produced from manufactured chemicals and perfumes, if that matters to you.

The Body Shop on the other hand is a much more ethical company. They’re openly against animal testing. They also do a significant portion of their trade with eco-friendly distributors, and also buy products straight from tribes and 3rd world producers. Products from the Body Shop are typically made from natural ingredients, but because of this their products are sometimes more costly.

I regularly buy products from the Body Shop, so I’m somewhat biased.

Most stuff that’s in shampoos has been tested so extensively already that there’s no real scientific need for SlashAndBurn Shampoo Co. to actually bother doing animal testing. If they do so anyway it may be for liability reasons (“No, your Honor, we didn’t actually TEST the shampoo; we just sorta figured it would be safe…” is not really what they want their witnesses to be saying).

Does anyone (maybe one of our Esquires) know if there’s been a law change/court decision recently that might have impacted the signs? Like “You can’t say ‘Not tested on animals’ when what you really mean is ‘This formulation contains 0.01% more water than the previous formulation, which WAS tested on animals.’”?

Another dodge that always amused me: “We do not test our products on animals.” i.e., “We contract out our animal testing.”

The law requires animal research for consumer products such as cosmetics, so there is no such thing as a product not tested on animals here in America. But if it makes you feel better, go ahead and buy the `cruelty free’ stuff.